rongo Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 1 hour ago, cinepro said: If we look at the scriptures as being "for our day", then I think it's fair for the Church to say that those scriptures are no longer useful in our day. It's not saying that those people and events weren't real. It's not denying that they were ever in the scriptures historically (plenty of people and websites will see to it that they are never forgotten). It's saying that if the scriptures are God's textbook for us in 2018, then we shouldn't be thinking about dark skin and curses and priesthood bans anymore. Where does the slippery slope of removing things "no longer useful in our day" end, though? I think it's far better to simply leave the scriptures as-is, and leave it up to mature readers to understand that they liken the scriptures unto themselves without removing anything. Likewise, there's a lot in the scriptures that is allegorical, metaphorical, or mythical (as is constantly pointed out on this forum). I would amend that to read that there's a lot in the scriptures that some claim is allegorical, metaphorical, or mythical. Where is the definitive list, and who determines what is definitive? And the Brethren (who by and large, and maybe even nearly-unanimously) aren't about to start endorsing mythical vs. historical lists. There would be nothing wrong with the Church saying that while these verses were in the scriptures historically, they aren't something the Church wants taught anymore That's the problem with the Brethren doing the "plausible deniability" thing with the essays. They (anonymously) allow Reeve's disavowal to stand, but offer no authoritative explanations of how the pre-existence is to be understood as affecting mortality (and elsewhere, they place a great deal of impact on mortality from the pre-existence). I would *love* for the Brethren themselves to speak authoritatively on this, but there is big trouble in River City when you have them disavowing scriptures or removing un-PC sections. I don't think that will ever happen. I sincerely hope that it never will.
Exiled Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 2 hours ago, cinepro said: I'll also add that it would be awesome if the Church celebrated the 40th anniversary of OD2 by removing all of the "skin curse" scriptures from the standard works (especially those dealing with Cain, Ham and Egyptus). That might be a bridge too far for now. But if the ban wasn't from God, certainly those scriptures were a wrong translation or wrong interpretation of what the modern church wants to portray and definitely should be removed.
rockpond Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 Be one... but only for the last 40 years. Prior to that, a little racism was okay as long as you believed God was behind it and that he’d eventually tell us to stop. 2
rongo Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Be one... but only for the last 40 years. Prior to that, a little racism was okay as long as you believed God was behind it and that he’d eventually tell us to stop. We weren't "not one" with the Levites, or when Ezra/Nehemiah expelled and prevented people of mixed parentage, or prior to Acts 10. Are we "not one" now with women not being able to hold the priesthood?
rockpond Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, rongo said: We weren't "not one" with the Levites, or when Ezra/Nehemiah expelled and prevented people of mixed parentage, or prior to Acts 10. Are we "not one" now with women not being able to hold the priesthood? If, some decades from now, we hold a worldwide broadcast to celebrate how we are now “one” because women were allowed to exercise the priesthood, then yes... we aren’t one now. 1
pogi Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 17 minutes ago, rockpond said: Be one... but only for the last 40 years. Prior to that, a little racism was okay as long as you believed God was behind it and that he’d eventually tell us to stop. I see the command to "be one" on par with the command to "be perfect". It is the ultimate goal and state of eternal life, not something that we will ever perfectly attain in this life. How many of us actually reach the state of perfect oneness with our own spouses, let alone our neighbors and their spouses!? Oneness is progressive, and I do see the church as progressing in it. It is not a perfect institution, so don't condemn it for something it doesn't claim to be. 1
rockpond Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I see the command to "be one" on par with the command to "be perfect". It is the ultimate goal and state of eternal life, not something that we will ever perfectly attain in this life. How many of us actually reach the state of perfect oneness with our own spouses, let alone our neighbors and their spouses!? Oneness is progressive, and I do see the church as progressing in it. It is not a perfect institution, so don't condemn it for something it doesn't claim to be. It is an important goal and, I believe, a divine principle. I don’t condemn the church. I do, however, think that this “celebration” ought to be accompanied by the clarity of a prophetic declaration that our previous division was not divinely sanctioned but was our misinterpretation of God’s will. If we aren’t able to do that just yet, than I see this particular celebration as being premature. 1
rongo Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: It is an important goal and, I believe, a divine principle. I don’t condemn the church. I do, however, think that this “celebration” ought to be accompanied by the clarity of a prophetic declaration that our previous division was not divinely sanctioned but was our misinterpretation of God’s will. If we aren’t able to do that just yet, than I see this particular celebration as being premature. I fully agree that a "celebration" is very awkward, given that the Brethren have studiously avoided talking about the priesthood ban *at all*, other than broad statements such as President Hinckley's (racism in any form is wrong, and invalidates the priesthood). I will be very happy if the priesthood ban is addressed at all in the broadcast. I would be very unhappy if the Brethren announced that the priesthood ban was wrong/a mistake/not of God. Part of me thinks "this will be interesting," and part of me thinks "this will be another thing with potential and promise that will end up being anti-climactic and disappointing." The trailer feeds into this, because it might just be some vignettes of people talking about being one. If that's all there is in a purported 40th anniversary celebration, that will be awkward.
rockpond Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, rongo said: I fully agree that a "celebration" is very awkward, given that the Brethren have studiously avoided talking about the priesthood ban *at all*, other than broad statements such as President Hinckley's (racism in any form is wrong, and invalidates the priesthood). I will be very happy if the priesthood ban is addressed at all in the broadcast. I would be very unhappy if the Brethren announced that the priesthood ban was wrong/a mistake/not of God. Part of me thinks "this will be interesting," and part of me thinks "this will be another thing with potential and promise that will end up being anti-climactic and disappointing." The trailer feeds into this, because it might just be some vignettes of people talking about being one. If that's all there is in a purported 40th anniversary celebration, that will be awkward. Totally agree with your second paragraph. And most of your first (just not that last sentence). But I recognize the issues with that and respect your opinion.
cacheman Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, rongo said: .... I would be very unhappy if the Brethren announced that the priesthood ban was wrong/a mistake/not of God.... Why would that make you unhappy? Conversely, would you be very happy if the brethren reaffirmed that the temple blessings ban was God's will?
Tacenda Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, cacheman said: Why would that make you unhappy? Conversely, would you be very happy if the brethren reaffirmed that the temple blessings ban was God's will? It's probably a slippery slope for Rongo and Nehor, makes the prophets and their revelations not very legite all the time.
rockpond Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, cacheman said: Why would that make you unhappy? Conversely, would you be very happy if the brethren reaffirmed that the temple blessings ban was God's will? This is where I really struggle. How do we celebrate the end of the ban by saying God wants us to be one but simultaneously hold firm that God was behind the ban. Seems incongruent to me but that isn’t the case for everyone. 1
cinepro Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 34 minutes ago, rockpond said: This is where I really struggle. How do we celebrate the end of the ban by saying God wants us to be one but simultaneously hold firm that God was behind the ban. Seems incongruent to me but that isn’t the case for everyone. It is an odd visual to be "celebrating" (commemorating?) the end of the Priesthood Ban. I wonder if they considered a similar celebration back in 1990 to celebrate 100 years since OD1. 1
bluebell Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 I think the celebration only makes sense if God was behind the ban. Celebrating the day that long withheld blessings were made available by God to every person makes sense. Celebrating the day the church figured out it had wrongly been keeping a lot of people from God's greatest blessings, makes less sense. 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 Until last year, I was ineligible to serve in the temple. Then that changed, and within days I had been called by the temple president himself to serve in the temple. I feel no more one with my fellow temple workers now than I did before. Being one is a choice that transcends any apparent distinctions. It was as much an option 50 years ago as it is now. 2
rockpond Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, bluebell said: I think the celebration only makes sense if God was behind the ban. Celebrating the day that long withheld blessings were made available by God to every person makes sense. Celebrating the day the church figured out it had wrongly been keeping a lot of people from God's greatest blessings, makes less sense. And for me, the latter statement is the truth of the matter. So celebrating the 40th anniversary is odd. Edited May 9, 2018 by rockpond
rockpond Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Until last year, I was ineligible to serve in the temple. Then that changed, and within days I had been called by the temple president himself to serve in the temple. I feel no more one with my fellow temple workers now than I did before. Being one is a choice that transcends any apparent distinctions. It was as much an option 50 years ago as it is now. I don’t entirely disagree but it is the church leadership who seem to be connecting the end of the ban with being one.
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don’t entirely disagree but it is the church leadership who seem to be connecting the end of the ban with being one. That's not how I understand the video, and I strongly suspect that will not be the message. I could be wrong. Edited May 9, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan
rockpond Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: That's not how I understand the video, and I strongly suspect that will not be the message. I could be wrong. I hope you’re right but it will be tough to get away from it... from LDS.org: In scripture, Jesus tells us to “be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.” “Be One” is the theme of a First Presidency-sponsored event on June 1, 2018, celebrating the 1978 revelation on the priesthood on its 40th anniversary.
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: I hope you’re right but it will be tough to get away from it... from LDS.org: In scripture, Jesus tells us to “be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.” “Be One” is the theme of a First Presidency-sponsored event on June 1, 2018, celebrating the 1978 revelation on the priesthood on its 40th anniversary. I'm still not seeing it. Are you suggesting that Church leaders are claiming that 40 years ago the Church wasn't 'His'?
rockpond Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I'm still not seeing it. Are you suggesting that Church leaders are claiming that 40 years ago the Church wasn't 'His'? Certainly not. But their decision to tie that theme to a celebration of the end of the ban makes the implication that we weren't "one" during the ban. One can say, it's just a theme for the meeting... it is not making a statement about the ban but that seems a stretch given the publicity (like the trailer in the OP).
Hamba Tuhan Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: But their decision to tie that theme to a celebration of the end of the ban makes the implication that we weren't "one" during the ban. Because of you, I can see that as a possibility now. It wasn't a conclusion I would have reached on my own. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Gray Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 13 hours ago, bluebell said: I think the celebration only makes sense if God was behind the ban. Celebrating the day that long withheld blessings were made available by God to every person makes sense. Celebrating the day the church figured out it had wrongly been keeping a lot of people from God's greatest blessings, makes less sense. It makes sense to celebrate the triumph of truth over error.
rongo Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 14 hours ago, cacheman said: Why would that make you unhappy? Because I believe that the ban's inception, duration, and ending really were God's will. Conversely, would you be very happy if the brethren reaffirmed that the temple blessings ban was God's will? We all know that isn't going to happen. I would be stunned if the Brethren directly addressed the ban at all (in either direction). I think this broadcast will be much more along the lines of "look how diverse we are and how far we've come" --- sort of an extended "I'm a Mormon" diversity greatest hits. However, if the Brethren were to directly state that the ban's inception, duration, and ending were revealed God's will, yes, that would make me very happy. Such a course runs counter to decades of careful PR cultivation and message control. I think it would be best to simply own it, and emphasize that all three (the inception, the duration, and the ending --- you could even focus more heavily on the ending) were God's will. To this point, the Church institutionally has tried to thread the needle by offering room for both conservatives like me and liberals who want a repudiation to believe what we want. I don't see this celebration broadcast as changing this status quo.
rongo Posted May 9, 2018 Posted May 9, 2018 8 hours ago, rockpond said: Certainly not. But their decision to tie that theme to a celebration of the end of the ban makes the implication that we weren't "one" during the ban. One can say, it's just a theme for the meeting... it is not making a statement about the ban but that seems a stretch given the publicity (like the trailer in the OP). I think, much more broadly, that the message is simply "C'mon, you guys! Can't we get along? Let's put this behind us (it was, after all, 40 years ago) and celebrate our diversity and oneness *now*." That is, focusing on the positives of where we are now, rather than getting at all into whys, whats, and hows of the actual ban itself. It seems pretty clear to me that the Brethren don't want to talk about that or draw attention to it. Which does make a celebration of the ending gutsy, interesting, and complicated. My expectations are not that the broadcast will be amazing. I'm going with the usual Church production: underwhelming, anti-climactic, and schmalzy.
Recommended Posts